Search form

Search form

Nearly half of the hyperlinks included as citations in Supreme Court opinions do not function properly anymore, according to a study. "It is disturbing that even at the Supreme Court, where creating and citing precedent is of the utmost importance, citations often fail to point the researcher to the authority on which the court based its decision," according to a paper by two librarians at Chicago's John Marshall Law School.

Related Summaries

A Supreme Court decision handed down last week could lead housing authorities to adopt racial quotas to guard against "disparate-impact" claims, writes Jason Riley, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Such quotas are counterproductive to preventing racial discrimination. "With the Supreme Court's help, the Fair Housing Act is well on its way to becoming a vehicle for advancing what it originally was intended to prohibit -- race-conscious housing decisions," Riley writes.

In a case brought by a pension fund, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that if an honestly made opinion in a securities registration turned out to be incorrect, it isn't enough to authorize a lawsuit seeking damages. The court also said an opinion not honestly held or that omits material facts can be the basis for a valid claim.

As the Supreme Court considers arguments on one aspect of the Affordable Care Act, lawmakers should reconsider the clause in the law that defines full time as 30 hours a week or more, write NRA CEO Dawn Sweeney and American Hotel and Lodging Association CEO Katherine Lugar. "The new definition of a full-time employment has slashed that number and hurt the income of millions of hard working hourly workers," they write.

President Barack Obama has renominated Sharon Block to the National Labor Relations Board, despite a Supreme Court ruling that rejected her nomination in January 2012. "Now she will be back, rewarmed with a partisan Senate vote, but still guaranteed to vote for union interests regardless of the facts or legal precedent," according to this editorial.

Several media outlets, in a rush to get the scoop, erroneously reported the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision on the health care act's individual mandate. According to Michael Ramos, AICPA Director of CPE and Training, CPAs put priority on delivering the right answer. He says there will always be a place in business for sound, independent analysis stemming from due diligence and deliberation. CPAs who want to learn about the ramifications of the Supreme Court's decision for clients and businesses should attend the AICPA webinar, The Supreme Court Decision on Health Care Reform, to be held 2 to 3 p.m. ET on Monday.